header-logo header-logo

Making matters worse?

05 September 2014 / Seamus Smyth
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Woolf & Jackson have diluted claimants’ costs recovery, says Seamus Smyth

The Woolf and Jackson Reports have made life tougher for claimants in business litigation by (i) introducing new litigation stages whose costs are not recoverable, (ii) increasing costs overall, and (iii) substantially reducing the proportion of costs which are recoverable by successful claimants. The two reports brought significant improvements but those improvements should not blind us to their—no doubt accidental—adverse consequences. Will it get worse?

In the 1990s (before Woolf) one could, with reasonable confidence, advise a client with a commercial claim that if a letter before action were written and he instituted successful proceedings shortly thereafter, he would probably be awarded, say, 80% of his actual costs. 20% was bad enough.

Woolf woes

Woolf introduced protocols. These are expensive; the costs are likely to be irrecoverable. He promoted mediation—also expensive—the cost of which is almost certainly irrecoverable. Summary assessment of costs in interlocutory proceedings was also a consequence of Woolf. The preparation of a summary assessment schedule alone has a further cost

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll